Was BR involved? #2

[UKGuy]

There is no evidence that she was strangled manually. The cord used is too thin to have covered evidence of manual strangulation. There is no evidence that she was smothered with a hand (or anything else) over her mouth. In fact, on this Meyer specifically mentions in the AR things being absent that would address the question of smothering and therefore disputes the possibility.

otg,

The cord used is too thin to have covered evidence of manual strangulation.

That was not its purpose, which is to offer an alternative explanation for the bruising lying beneath the circumferential ligature furrow. You buy it don't you.

There is no evidence that she was smothered with a hand (or anything else) over her mouth. In fact, on this Meyer specifically mentions in the AR things being absent that would address the question of smothering and therefore disputes the possibility.

Sure, how about manual strangulation, i.e. check the bruising lying beneath the circumferential ligature furrow?

There is no evidence that she was strangled manually.

Of course there is: the bruising lying beneath the circumferential ligature furrow.

It might not suit your preferred theory, but then the head bash does not suit other peoples theory, similarly the time gap between the head bash and asphyxiation.

The sexual assault, well some say it never took place, that the digit was really the rounded aspect of the paintbrush, and the chronic injuries, well they are old, not acute, i.e. not pertinent to JonBenet's homicide.

How would the person staging JonBenet's crime-scene, say PR or JR, know JonBenet had prior chronic internal injuries that required obsfucation?


.

 

[otg]

There is no evidence that she was strangled manually. The cord used is too thin to have covered evidence of manual strangulation. There is no evidence that she was smothered with a hand (or anything else) over her mouth. In fact, on this Meyer specifically mentions in the AR things being absent that would address the question of smothering and therefore disputes the possibility.

otg,

That was not its purpose, which is to offer an alternative explanation for the bruising lying beneath the circumferential ligature furrow. You buy it don't you.


Sure, how about manual strangulation, i.e. check the bruising lying beneath the circumferential ligature furrow?


Of course there is: the bruising lying beneath the circumferential ligature furrow.

It might not suit your preferred theory, but then the head bash does not suit other peoples theory, similarly the time gap between the head bash and asphyxiation.

It’s not difficult to search for photos of victims of manual strangulation. The bruising from this kind of attack is unmistakable. It would NOT be hidden or obfuscated in any way by a 1/4” cord. JonBenet was NOT manually strangled.

As for smothering, Dr. Meyer made the following comments in the AR:

“No buccal mucosal trauma is seen. The frenulum is intact.”
​

It’s no big secret that I find a lot of fault with some of the things Meyer did or didn’t do. But in some cases he did make note of things that should have been looked at so there is no question about whether or not they were considered. In this case, he made note of the two things that would be an indication of whether she had been smothered. If you read a little about the signs of smothering, it’s rare to find it was done without some bruising of the lips against the victim’s teeth or some damage to the frenulum. JonBenet was NOT smothered.

The sexual assault, well some say it never took place, that the digit was really the rounded aspect of the paintbrush, and the chronic injuries, well they are old, not acute, i.e. not pertinent to JonBenet's homicide.

How would the person staging JonBenet's crime-scene, say PR or JR, know JonBenet had prior chronic internal injuries that required obsfucation?


.

Chronic internal injuries were NOT obfuscated (were they). Meyer made note of injuries that were chronic (in the medical sense of the word). As well, the acute injuries were well documented. The very idea that she was sexually assaulted as a way to hide prior sexual assaults makes absolutely no sense to me at all. If a recent sexual assault was simply a staged event, why on earth would the resulting blood be wiped from her thighs and genitals by the person trying to stage the event? Can you not see just how contradictory this is?

The person(s) who altered the crime scene (John and Patsy Ramsey) did so with the intent of concealing the fact that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted in connection with her death. They didn’t want anyone to know she had been sexually assaulted in case it was ever realized who caused her to die. They couldn’t even admit that it happened after the AR became public knowledge and everyone knew that it did happen. Deny, deny, deny. Where was the outrage at what someone did to their daughter? Where was the anger? The desire for justice? Where?

The sexual assault that was done to JonBenet was NOT staged! It happened.

 

[BoldBear]

It's been suggested that JBR was strangled before death for the purposes of erotic asphyxiation. There was a serial killer several years ago that would pick gay men up on the highway. He'd be the one who was strangled first and then they'd switch. He'd convince his victim to participate in the act and he'd choke them. Once it was reversed, he'd take it all the way and choke them to death.

I always understood the act of erotic asphyxiation as being for the one who was being chocked. The purpose is that one comes close to death and experiences a drowning sensation which can include hallucinations. It is never actually intended to kill. Sometimes things go to far and erotic asphyxiation becomes accidental death.

So in this case, the killer intended to (I hate to say it) sexually torture her, strangle her close to death, torture her some more, and then kill her? If so, I'm changing my vote to IDI. Someone who uses erotic asphyxia for some sadist intent will do it again. Seriously, JR or BR if they did that and didn't kill again would commit the act on someone who would live to tell. Of course that would explain why PR didn't wake-up if JR chocked her until she was unconscious. (Just hyperbole. I'm not actually suggesting that.)

 

[UKGuy]

It’s not difficult to search for photos of victims of manual strangulation. The bruising from this kind of attack is unmistakable. It would NOT be hidden or obfuscated in any way by a 1/4” cord. JonBenet was NOT manually strangled.

As for smothering, Dr. Meyer made the following comments in the AR:

“No buccal mucosal trauma is seen. The frenulum is intact.”
​

It’s no big secret that I find a lot of fault with some of the things Meyer did or didn’t do. But in some cases he did make note of things that should have been looked at so there is no question about whether or not they were considered. In this case, he made note of the two things that would be an indication of whether she had been smothered. If you read a little about the signs of smothering, it’s rare to find it was done without some bruising of the lips against the victim’s teeth or some damage to the frenulum. JonBenet was NOT smothered.



Chronic internal injuries were NOT obfuscated (were they). Meyer made note of injuries that were chronic (in the medical sense of the word). As well, the acute injuries were well documented. The very idea that she was sexually assaulted as a way to hide prior sexual assaults makes absolutely no sense to me at all. If a recent sexual assault was simply a staged event, why on earth would the resulting blood be wiped from her thighs and genitals by the person trying to stage the event? Can you not see just how contradictory this is?

The person(s) who altered the crime scene (John and Patsy Ramsey) did so with the intent of concealing the fact that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted in connection with her death. They didn’t want anyone to know she had been sexually assaulted in case it was ever realized who caused her to die. They couldn’t even admit that it happened after the AR became public knowledge and everyone knew that it did happen. Deny, deny, deny. Where was the outrage at what someone did to their daughter? Where was the anger? The desire for justice? Where?

The sexual assault that was done to JonBenet was NOT staged! It happened.

otg,

As for smothering, Dr. Meyer made the following comments in the AR:

If you care to peruse my posts, you will find I do not mention smothering, but I do suggest manual strangulation.

The very idea that she was sexually assaulted as a way to hide prior sexual assaults makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

There you go. Patently what might be nonsensical at one stage, may become orthodoxy at another, e.g. BDI, once a heretical theory.

If a recent sexual assault was simply a staged event, why on earth would the resulting blood be wiped from her thighs and genitals by the person trying to stage the event? Can you not see just how contradictory this is?

Because there may have been more than one staged crime-scene, e.g. one in her bedroom, later relocated to the basement, hence the wipe down and the size-12's, the use of the paintbrush attempts to mask the acute assault, in the same manner that the ligature masks prior manual strangulation. Presumably the missing piece was left inside JonBenet, no?

JonBenet in the wine-cellar suggests a sexual assault and asphyxiation different from that upstairs, simple!

The sexual assault that was done to JonBenet was NOT staged! It happened.

Paintbrush assault, staged, or a sexual assault? Digital Penetration and Sexual Contact, acute sexual assault or staged by the parents, prove which is which?

They didn’t want anyone to know she had been sexually assaulted in case it was ever realized who caused her to die.

Nah, Paintbrush Assault demonstrates otherwise!

Its a staged crime-scene, not a real one!

.

 

[allysasaurus]

As ive said on other threads...
I think the flashlight had no prints on it bc when patsy came down to see what the commotion was, burke may have said, i hit her with the flashlight and now she wont wake up.
From what ive read, he never denied hitting her with the golf club?

 

[BoldBear]

Someone on another thread asked a question that I thought would be better here. "Now that BR is of legal age, why doesn't he agree to meet with investigators to answer questions?" This isn't a question of guilt or innocence. What would the point be? If he did, it would just be more raw meat for speculation. Even if the interview became public and he claimed that he wasn't a part of JBR's death, how many people would believe him? There would be absolutely nothing to gain from such an interview. It would put him back in the spotlight. You spend your life hoping that everyone would forget about this. Such an interview wouldn't make sense.

 

[andreww]

Someone on another thread asked a question that I thought would be better here. "Now that BR is of legal age, why doesn't he agree to meet with investigators to answer questions?" This isn't a question of guilt or innocence. What would the point be? If he did, it would just be more raw meat for speculation. Even if the interview became public and he claimed that he wasn't a part of JBR's death, how many people would believe him? There would be absolutely nothing to gain from such an interview. It would put him back in the spotlight. You spend your life hoping that everyone would forget about this. Such an interview wouldn't make sense.

An interview would give him credibility if he were to tell the truth. But that's the problem isn't it? Each one of the Ramsey's, including little Burkey lied in their initial interviews. You have to ask yourself why? Because he was involved in it, be it the coverup or the crime itself. If any of the Ramsey's had been 100% honest back then, they would have no problem talking about it now. Burke telling Beckner's boys to talk to his lawyer tells you that kid is hiding something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

Someone on another thread asked a question that I thought would be better here. "Now that BR is of legal age, why doesn't he agree to meet with investigators to answer questions?" This isn't a question of guilt or innocence. What would the point be? If he did, it would just be more raw meat for speculation. Even if the interview became public and he claimed that he wasn't a part of JBR's death, how many people would believe him? There would be absolutely nothing to gain from such an interview. It would put him back in the spotlight. You spend your life hoping that everyone would forget about this. Such an interview wouldn't make sense.

No one can be compelled to talk to police- even a suspect in custody. Police asked BR to come and talk to them. He reused (his lawyer refused on his behalf). He has nothing to gain by talking to them and everything to lose. If you read the police interviews with the parents, you will learn a lot just by seeing the questions their lawyers will NOT let them answer. And there were questions the police were not ALLOWED to ask. Can you imagine that? Police not being ALLOWED to ask questions about pertinent to a the murder of a child? Of the child's parents? I couldn't believe it either. Yet that was the case.
There was nothing to be gained, I believe, even if BR did talk to them. Either his lawyer wouldn't allow him to answer specific questions or the police wouldn't have been allowed to ask them.

 

[andreww]

Nothing to gain? How about justice for his sister? I guess that's pretty low on the Ramsey's list of priorities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Someone on another thread asked a question that I thought would be better here. "Now that BR is of legal age, why doesn't he agree to meet with investigators to answer questions?" This isn't a question of guilt or innocence. What would the point be? If he did, it would just be more raw meat for speculation. Even if the interview became public and he claimed that he wasn't a part of JBR's death, how many people would believe him? There would be absolutely nothing to gain from such an interview. It would put him back in the spotlight. You spend your life hoping that everyone would forget about this. Such an interview wouldn't make sense.

BoldBear,
BR is in the spotlight, he is a prime suspect, more so now than before. he probably asked his attorney do I need to do an interview?, he was probably told, no, unless your compelled as a witness, etc.

So its back to flying under the radar, selling uranium products etc, for BR!

 

[BoldBear]

My only point was that there wouldn't be anything for BR to gain from an interview. I agree that it would be great to solve the murder and respect his sister's death. But short of that, the tabloids would be hounding him again. Everyone he knows would be whispering behind his back (more than they do now). There would be nothing for him to gain no matter how much we want him to reveal everything he knows. That's only made worse if he implicates his parents or himself.

And it's a weak argument to claim that he can't be implicated for murder so he should come forward. 12 was a hard age for me. My parents did some things I'm not proud of, but I was a kid at the time. I went along with it even when I wasn't aware of the consequences. My (adult) close family knows about it. It wasn't a crime. It wasn't illegal, but I was a responsible child. I behaved like and was treated as an adult. Now I realize that there's no way I could have been responsible for that decision. I would have never treated a 12 year old as a responsible adult. And I would have never put a child in a position that would have hurt others. But that's me as an adult. That's an adult decision--not a child's. I must be stupid too because I was well within my 40s when I finally figured-out that I wasn't an adult at 12. For me, I blamed myself for everything that happened as though I was a reasoned adult in my childhood. The only thing that adulthood means to me is that I get to now make the decisions that I'm responsible for. As a kid, my parents made the decisions and I took on their full weight as though I made them.

BR was 9. He listened to and followed the wishes of his parents. Even now as an adult, he could be still following their wishes. Wasn't there a top 10 list somewhere that said something about that? So you want him to come forward and completely devastate the memory of his mother and destroy his father? You want him to completely give-up those secrets he's held onto for so many years because you think it will make him feel better?

I'm telling you that there is nothing you can do to relieve the pain and horror of a devastating childhood. I'll remember my part as though there was something I could have done to change the events in my life forever. My sins only involved being in the middle of two warring divorced parents. I can't tell you how much as an adult I want to go back and change my actions. I'll be responsible for them forever.

A crime was committed here. But it wasn't just a crime to JBR it was a crime to BR too. If he was innocent, it's bad enough that he's been under the veil of suspicion all his life. If he was guilty, it's just as bad because the people he trusted to protect him, betrayed him. Had he murdered JBR the best thing would have been to get it out in the open. It would have been painful...horrible for years but it wouldn't have been as horrible as this endless suspicion. It wouldn't have been as bad as remembering the night and the actions and the stories and the looks and the whispers all of these years. It would have been hell to watch his mother in pain all of those years and to watch his father loose his job, security and wealth. But that's okay BR was a psychopath...only I can't believe that. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Yes, there was the golf club. Yes, JBR bothered him all the time. But where are those psychopathic tendencies? I, for one, don't believe that a psychiatrist can change a psychopath. A psychiatrist can only try to control the severity of the patient's actions. So here's BR, looking back on that night and everything that happened never being able to get any of it out of his mind and praying to God that he could have change even a small part of it. Guilty or innocent.

There really isn't anything he can gain by an interview. We all wish he would do it, but I think we know why he shouldn't.

 

[allysasaurus]

He'll talk. But only after john ramsey passes. If burke passes before his father, i think what he knows will probably die with him.

 

[andreww]

He'll talk. But only after john ramsey passes. If burke passes before his father, i think what he knows will probably die with him.

I doubt that will happen either. Even if he did, would anyone believe him at this point? But you do bring up an interesting idea, if Burke wasn't involved (meaning it was John and Patsy), wouldn't a confession by John at or after his death be the noble thing to do? I mean he has to know what its like to have people whispering behind his back, and he has to know that Burke is also living his life under constant scrutiny. Would the noble thing to do be to admit to it so that Burke can at least live part of his life free from suspicion and so he doesn't have to spend the rest of his life either silenced or lying?

But again, with all the lies they've told, even a confession would still come under scrutiny.

 

[887sMtreme]

Nobility? I don't get that JR has that in him.

 

[DeeDee249]

I doubt that will happen either. Even if he did, would anyone believe him at this point? But you do bring up an interesting idea, if Burke wasn't involved (meaning it was John and Patsy), wouldn't a confession by John at or after his death be the noble thing to do? I mean he has to know what its like to have people whispering behind his back, and he has to know that Burke is also living his life under constant scrutiny. Would the noble thing to do be to admit to it so that Burke can at least live part of his life free from suspicion and so he doesn't have to spend the rest of his life either silenced or lying?

But again, with all the lies they've told, even a confession would still come under scrutiny.

That noble act implies BR was not involved at all. I believe he was. And I agree that whatever they say at this point would be met with skepticism. And that includes the DA.

 

[bettybaby00]

As ive said on other threads...
I think the flashlight had no prints on it bc when patsy came down to see what the commotion was, burke may have said, i hit her with the flashlight and now she wont wake up.
From what ive read, he never denied hitting her with the golf club?

An interview would give him credibility if he were to tell the truth. But that's the problem isn't it? Each one of the Ramsey's, including little Burkey lied in their initial interviews. You have to ask yourself why? Because he was involved in it, be it the coverup or the crime itself. If any of the Ramsey's had been 100% honest back then, they would have no problem talking about it now. Burke telling Beckner's boys to talk to his lawyer tells you that kid is hiding something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one can be compelled to talk to police- even a suspect in custody. Police asked BR to come and talk to them. He reused (his lawyer refused on his behalf). He has nothing to gain by talking to them and everything to lose. If you read the police interviews with the parents, you will learn a lot just by seeing the questions their lawyers will NOT let them answer. And there were questions the police were not ALLOWED to ask. Can you imagine that? Police not being ALLOWED to ask questions about pertinent to a the murder of a child? Of the child's parents? I couldn't believe it either. Yet that was the case.
There was nothing to be gained, I believe, even if BR did talk to them. Either his lawyer wouldn't allow him to answer specific questions or the police wouldn't have been allowed to ask them.

I always found it interesting they he chose/refused to speak with investigators. IA it would go a long way toward his credibility IF he had nothing to hide to speak with investigators.

I'm a night owl, and often watch Forensic Files as it's often the only thing of interest on TV at 1 in the morning! Many of the cases they highlight are cold cases, and in nearly every instance there is a family member (often a sibling) willing to take part in the show and and recount their continued efforts with LE in the hope that somehow, someday, the perpetrator will be brought to justice.

IIRC BR was approached by LE and and his immediate response was "talk to my lawyers," and he then quickly walked away. That doesn't seem like someone interested in finding justice for his murdered sister. I get it could be painful, but like many of the Rs behaviors, it just doesn't sit right with me.

MOO

 

[andreww]

Does anything this family has said or done sit right with you? From day 1 all three members of this family has done nothing to aid LE in their hunt for the killer. It's no surprise at all that Burke is still uncooperative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elannia]

If the R's were innocent, they would have come forward from day one to find their daughters killer. But no, they waited 4 months before giving an interview, BR doesnt want to come out and talk to LE, he knows something,thats why he doesnt want to talk. This was the brutal murder of the R's child, and BR sister. Why didnt they want to come out and get justice for her... well to me its pretty obvious. They were all protecting each other. And honestly after JR passes I dont think BR will even talk then. And I believe BR REMEMBERS everything that happened that night(imo he only did the head bash, then was probably sent to his room) so I just wonder what he thought when he found out she had been strangled, he was overheard talking to DS about this, so obviously if he knows he only bashed her, then his parents did the rest, and they told him not to ever speak of it to anyone.

 

[bettybaby00]

Does anything this family has said or done sit right with you? From day 1 all three members of this family has done nothing to aid LE in their hunt for the killer. It's no surprise at all that Burke is still uncooperative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, none of the Rs behaviors has been reflective of people who have nothing to hide. The contrast between the Rs to other families who have suffered the tragedy of a murdered/missing child is striking and IMO is significant when analyzing the totality of evidence in this case. Don't even get me started on the "foundation" they set up. SMH

 

[Tawny]

"Everybody grieves differently"